Agreeing with Dana. Shutting up. Moving on.

Thanks for the clarification, Wolfram. And I only cited the above posts for clarfication, since I believe they provide an accurate recap (mine) and verfication of that recap (yours) so others wouldn't have to slog.

Now he's finding out he's banned, probably forever

I don't think he's just now finding out, Wolfram. Or, no, I don't know what he thinks. But I believe he's being disingenuous. "Banned" means banned. ETA: And yes I realize he left voluntarily when it was determined he was the same individual. But that's like pleading guilty in order to avoid a trial -- he admitted that he'd violated the terms of his suspension, the response to which is banning.

The rules were clear -- if someone violates the terms of their suspension, they are banned. For good.

I'm sorry if M didn't understand that at the time he reregistered during his suspension and lied to people about his identity.

I don't think anyone during any of the discussions leading up to and following after the banning ever said anything to indicate that a banning was less than complete.

Do we really need to pull out the dictionary and see how it defines "ban" versus "suspend"?

ETA: and people have asked that we stop talking about it, so I will. Sorry.

If the stompies have sent a letter saying "two more months" that isn't forever.

And I wish John would come back, too.

Seconded. Can we vote on it now?

If the stompies have sent a letter saying "two more months" that isn't forever.

The Stompies sent a letter saying that it could not even be DISCUSSED for two more months. They did not make any promises, and in fact, they indicated that they didn't think it likely that his "record" could be wiped clean.

Now he's finding out he's banned, probably forever

I don't think he's just now finding out, Wolfram. Or, no, I don't know what he thinks. But I believe he's being disingenuous. "Banned" means banned.

The rules were clear -- if someone violates the terms of their suspension, they are banned. For good.

I agree totally. And I'll be clear on this: I don't want mieskie/schmoker/anathema/whatever the hell he calls himself to be allowed back.

People need to stop pointing me to things. IJS.

Anyway, here's my take on the Schmoker thing. He says he wants back in and he's learned his lesson and he wants to be a valuable member of the community? Like I care. He had his chance. Here's the key on why I would never support his return.

If he truly cared about this community, he should have stepped in on that day when we were all going at it over whether or not he was mieskie, etc. He could have stopped that unfortunate conversation by copping to it and voluntarily serving out his original suspension. He would have proven that he really did care about this place and the people and had come to understood the way the community worked. Maybe then we could have had this conversation and discussed his possible return.

But he didn't. Instead, he played the outraged wounded party and ranted and raved about how John was wronging him. He didn't confess until he was confronted with hard evidence. While it was good of him to go quietly, it doesn't erase the previous behavior.

He was banned. I don't see any reason to even discuss reversing that decision.

He was banned. I don't see any reason to even discuss reversing that decision

Apparently, some of us do, however.

Actions have consequences and some consequences are permenant, that's just how life goes.